For a few weeks last fall, editors and ombudsmen at The Washington Post and New York Times seemed obsessed with the idea that they should be paying more attention to right-wing media and websites. In the wake of some wildly hyperbolic claims about ACORN, the nation's leading news outlets apologized for being too slow to run chasing after every "scandal" ginned up by Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and their ilk.

Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli worried "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view" -- a concern echoed by his deputies and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander.

At The New York Times, managing editor Jill Abramson said the Times suffered from "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio" and that the paper would assign an editor to monitor such media. Public editor Clark Hoyt criticized the Times for being too slow to pick up the ACORN allegations, fretting that the delay made the Times look "partisan." And Hoyt took the Times to task for what he thought was too great an emphasis on the political motivations behind the attacks on ACORN:

By stressing the politics, the article irritated more readers. "A suspicious person might see an attempt to deflect criticism of Acorn by highlighting how those pesky conservatives are at it again," said Albert Smith of Chatham, N.J.

I thought politics was emphasized too much, at the expense of questions about an organization whose employees in city after city participated in outlandish conversations about illegal and immoral activities. (Acorn suggested some videos were doctored but fired or suspended many of the employees.)

Hoyt went on to criticize the Times article for omitting mention of a video of, and allegations about, ACORN workers in Brooklyn.

The hand-wringing at the Post and the Times about being insufficiently attuned to conservative arguments should ring false to any fair-minded person who remembers the role those papers played in the relentless hyping of Clinton-era non-scandals, their heavily slanted coverage of the 2000 presidential campaign, or their disastrously inadequate coverage of the Bush administration's march to war. (Alexander and the Post editors have ducked requests that they reconcile the paper's coverage of those events with their statements that the Post needs to be more responsive to conservatives.)

But even worse than the myopic view of their treatment of conservatives over the years was the misguided premise that the media should pay attention to certain people simply because they are ideologically conservative -- as if a person's ideology, rather than the accuracy and honesty and importance of his claims, determines whether he should be taken seriously.

That's dangerously wrong. It's the kind of thinking that leads the media to grant equal weight to scientists who say the Earth is warming and politicians who respond by pointing out the continued existence of snow.

And, indeed, the conservative media have spent the last several months proving again and again that they simply do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Take, for example, the ACORN tapes that the Post and Times apologized for not covering sooner. Turns out the right-wing activists behind them were badly misrepresenting what they showed (we're still waiting for the Times to correct its false claim that James O'Keefe was dressed in an outlandish pimp costume while meeting with the ACORN employees). And the Brooklyn district attorney has reportedly found that the tapes were misleadingly edited:

The video that unleashed a firestorm of criticism on the activist group ACORN was a "heavily edited" splice job that only made it appear as though the organization's workers were advising a pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage, sources said yesterday.

The findings by the Brooklyn DA, following a 5½-month probe into the video, secretly recorded by conservative provocateurs James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, means that no charges will be filed.

Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said.

Remember: Times public editor Clark Hoyt criticized his paper for not covering that Brooklyn tape. And he complained that the paper's coverage of the ACORN allegations focused too much on the political motives of the accusers. Think maybe he'd like to have that one back?

Or consider The Weekly Standard's comically inept attempts to create scandal out of whole cloth, which involve inventing a totally baseless allegation of vote-buying, then rapidly back-tracking once they're called on the improbability of their claims.

Then there's the absurd-on-its-face conspiracy theory that President Obama wants to ban fishing. Believing such a thing requires tinfoil-hat-level paranoia and inability to reason -- and yet Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and several right-wing bloggers eagerly peddled that nonsense. Stupid, or dishonest? It doesn't matter -- either way, it's further evidence that nobody should take anything they say seriously.

And how about Beck's claim that an alternative measure of the poverty level proposed by the Obama administration would classify him as "in poverty," despite his millions of dollars in annual earnings. That's obviously false -- yet Glenn Beck said it. How can you trust anything said by someone who is willing to say things that are obviously false? On Fox & Friends, the hosts assert that Democrats "want Americans to pay 70% of their income in taxes." Is that true? Of course not! So why do they say it? Because they have no hesitation whatsoever when it comes to lying.

And yet The New York Times and The Washington Post think they should pay extra attention to claims that come from the right-wing media; that they should be quicker to repeat the nonsense churned out every day by this pack of professional liars, simply because they are conservatives. But the decades-long track record suggests the opposite: The fact that Fox News or The Weekly Standard is promoting some story is pretty good reason to assume it isn't newsworthy.

Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Foser also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Glenn Beck has repeatedly attacked popular music as "propaganda" that is helping to advance a progressive agenda and undermine America. Fox example, Beck warned that Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" is "about a progressive utopia" and that the Beatles' "Revolution" "spell[s] it all out" about "how progressives have been operating."

Beck's revelations about "Revolution" and other hits

Beck and crew call Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." "anti-American." On Beck's radio show, co-host Pat Gray stated: "How many of us go to the Fourth of July fireworks display, we see the fireworks blasting, exploding in the air, and we hear 'Born in the U.S.A.' by Bruce Springsteen, and we're like, 'Yeah, "Born in the U.S.A." ' And you get filled with patriotic pride, and then you find out that Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the U.S.A.' is anti-American." After Beck read the lyrics of the song, Gray said, "That's what it's all about. That's what America's about, according to Bruce Springsteen." Beck responded: "See, here's the thing that I don't think people understand yet -- I think you do -- that it is time for us to wake up out of our dream state, wake up out of the propaganda." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 3/11/10]

Beck warns viewers that Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" is "about a progressive utopia." On his Fox News show, Beck read lyrics from "This Land Is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie -- whom he identified as a communist -- and stated: "This song is about a progressive utopia where there are no owners of anything. We all just share it. It's made for you -- it's your land, it's my land. We all have it together. Some people have property now, and some people don't. We can all think of this song as an American song. Yes, it is -- an American progressive song." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 3/10/10]

Beck analyzes Beatles' "Revolution" to illustrate progressives' plan to slowly institute Marxism. On his radio show, Beck implored his listeners to "listen to the words" of the Beatles' "Revolution." After playing part of the song, Beck asked, "Do you know why those two lines -- evolution and revolution -- are in this song?" Beck then said, "If you know the history of progressives" and stated that progressives and Marxists "believe in all the same stuff." Beck continued: "Their [progressives'] idea was you don't need a bloody revolution. You just evolve things slowly, and you'll change the world." After playing more of the song, Gray said, "This is all -- it's peaceful." Beck responded, "But it's progressive." [The Glenn Beck Program, 1/21/10]

Beck again on "Revolution": "[I]t's all about understanding how progressives have been operating." On his January 25 Fox News show, Beck again warned about the Beatles:

BECK: Last week on radio, we were talking about the Beatles song, "Revolution." I really listened to the words of this and I got to tell you something, the Beatles spells it -- they spell it all out. And it's all about understanding how progressives have been operating.

[...]

BECK: The Beatles knew. They knew, opening and defending Mao, or attacking the Constitution would be suicidal. You can't change it. You can't have a revolution. But you can make the Constitution evolve. You can make it a -- what is it progressives said around the turn of the century -- a living document! Evolution. Evolution, not revolution -- slowly, step-by-step. [Glenn Beck, 1/25/10]

Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy baselessly claimed that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is offering a way to pass health care reform legislation "without actually voting on it." However, the House has already voted on and passed a health care reform bill, and a legislative rule reportedly under consideration would still require the House to vote on changes to the Senate's health care reform bill.

Doocy: By passing a rule, the House can "pass the health care bill without actually voting on it"

From the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: It's interesting, though. While the Democrats are meeting behind closed doors today, Louise Slaughter, who is the chair of the House Rules Committee -- she has apparently got this idea on how the House can vote on this bill without actually voting on it. Because apparently, what -- you know, where people actually come out and say, "I'm for it," or "I'm against it" -- apparently, with each bill they have to come up with a -- they have to agree on a set of rules. And according to the papers this morning, the "Slaughter solution" rule would declare that the House deems the Senate version to have been passed by the House, and then House members would then have to vote on whether or not to accept the rule. So, by passing that rule, then they can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it. That is crazy.

House has already passed health care reform legislation and would still need to vote on changes to Senate bill

House has already passed health care reform bill. Contrary to Doocy's claim that the House "can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it," the House already passed health care reform legislation on November 7, 2009.

Report: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. Contrary to Doocy's claim that the House would pass the bill simply by voting "on whether or not to accept the rule," CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Fox News has trumpeted stories that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's staff -- but not Pelosi herself -- may have been made aware of some concerns regarding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) last year. However, following the revelation that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert had likely been personally informed of email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page, Fox News personalities defended Hastert.

Fair and Balanced Fox: Defend Hastert -- who was likely aware of Foley's email -- but attack Pelosi, who says she was not aware of Massa allegations

The disparities between Fox's coverage of the reports surrounding Massa and its coverage of the Republican leadership's handling of the Foley situation are especially striking given the differences in the two stories. After the Foley scandal, the House ethics committee confirmed reports that Hastert was likely told about Foley's inappropriate emails yet took no action. The ethics committee further found that Republican leader John Boehner failed to show "any curiosity regarding" the Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to do anything about them.

By contrast, there is no evidence that Pelosi personally knew of allegations about Massa before the matter became public, and majority leader Steny Hoyer's office says that Hoyer ensured that the allegations were referred to the ethics committee as soon as he was made aware of them.

Pelosi says she first learned of Massa allegations in March 2010. As The Wall Street Journal reported on March 11, "Pelosi said she personally learned about allegations of misconduct [by Massa] March 3. The speaker said her staff knew about the allegations of sexual harassment around the time they were reported to Mr. Hoyer's office in early February."

WSJ: Leadership aide says Pelosi wasn't informed of "October discussion" about Massa. While Pelosi's staff was reportedly informed of "concerns" about Massa in October 2009, the Journal reported that according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, "Pelosi wasn't informed of the October discussion, and the matter was not referred to the House ethics committee because it did not involve allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment."

Hoyer's office says Hoyer ensured misconduct allegations were immediately referred to ethics committee. Hoyer's office released the following statement on March 3:

The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa's staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer's staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer's staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa's staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts.

By contrast, ethics committee found that Hastert was likely told about Foley emails and apparently took no action. From page 85 of the ethics committee's 2006 report on the Foley scandal:

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring 2006.

[...]

Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

Ethics committee found that Rep. Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show "any curiosity regarding" Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to take any action. From page 85 of the ethics committee report:

Rep. Alexander did not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything -- each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

In 2006, Fox News figures defended Hastert's role in Foley scandal

September 30, 2006: McClatchy reported that Reynolds said he informed Hastert of emails "months ago." On September 30, 2006, McClatchy reported (accessed via Nexis) that Reynolds said he informed Hastert "months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley":

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee charged with maintaining his party's majority, said Saturday that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley -- e-mails the boy said "freaked him out."

Hastert said he doesn't remember the conversation but "has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," his chief of staff and outside counsel said in an internal review released after Reynolds' statement.

The revelations have prompted calls for independent investigations. Some Democrats have alleged a coverup by the House leadership.

Hannity defends Hastert: "The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an e-mail." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

JANE FLEMING (director, Young Democrats of America): Yeah, it's clear that Hastert knew over a year ago, and maybe even longer, that this was going on, and he did absolutely nothing about it. And we have to ask: Why did he do nothing about it?

It seems to us that he was covering it up, hoping that it would go away. When it didn't go away, then they had Foley resign, and they still haven't done a full investigation about --

HANNITY: Hey, Jane, Jane --

FLEMING: Yeah?

HANNITY: Let me stop you right here.

FLEMING: Go ahead.

HANNITY: There is no evidence, none that you can cite to our audience --

FLEMING: Yes, there is.

HANNITY: -- wait a minute, wait a minute -- that Dennis Hastert knew anything about the sexual, salacious nature of the instant messages.

[...]

HANNITY: The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an email. Now, I spoke to Hastert. He didn't even know about the request for a picture. All he knew was the parents wanted the emails to stop --

ANN COULTER (right-wing pundit): Right.

HANNITY: -- and the parents' request was answered. He didn't know about this, and there's no proof, in spite of liberals screaming it, they can't cite any evidence that Hastert knew.

COULTER: No, of course not.

HANNITY: But here's what we do know. Here's what we do know. The George Soros-funded group, for example, got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society that gives money to this group, CREW, well, they knew about this -- and I'm reading from The Hill -- quote, "when CREW received copies of Foley's e-mails earlier this summer." So apparently, now there's even discussion that they may have been in contact with Democrats.

Hannity said there's "no evidence" GOP leaders knew Foley was "going after pages," demanded CREW "phone records." From the October 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Let me go back to Michael Barone here for just a second. Michael, this is an important point you were raising here. And I want a full investigation. Democrats are calling for it, but interestingly, I think, you know, I'd like to see -- for example, we know that this website, CREW, funded by George Soros, had these emails now and were bragging on their website as early as July 21.

Now, that raises the questions, because a lot of these CREW members previously worked on Capitol Hill for prominent Democrats. I'd like to see emails, I'd like to see phone records, I'd like to know if there was any contact regarding these things. In other words, what did they know and when did they know it? Because what you're pointing out here, they would have put the safety and security of children, you know --

BARONE: At risk.

HANNITY: -- prioritize partisan politics over the safety and security of children.

[...]

DOUG HATTAWAY (Democratic strategist): That's exactly what the Republican leadership did. They -- the point you're missing, Sean, I think, is wherever these explicit emails showed up -- I don't know what the leadership knew about those -- they knew that this guy was going after pages --

HANNITY: There's no evidence of that at all.

[crosstalk]

HATTAWAY: -- they did nothing about it.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): And thank you very much, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Hattaway, and Mr. Barone. Thank you.

Hannity: "no evidence" Hastert knew, suggested Republican leadership are "innocent people" being "smeared." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, it's taken on a very different dynamic though tonight, and that is that Democrats are saying -- I was watching The Fox Report with Shep tonight, and there's Nancy Pelosi out there campaigning today, saying with just 100 percent certainty that Dennis Hastert knew.

Now, I interviewed Dennis Hastert. I've interviewed John Boehner. They both deny -- and there's absolutely no evidence to corroborate this. Now, we're also getting information tonight that there are Democratically funded websites, by people like Soros, that had knowledge of this long before this was made public.

I'm wondering if we're now moving into a different arena here, where this is so politicized that this is going to backfire against the people trying to make hay out of what is a sexual scandal of one man. Your thoughts?

[...]

HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.

Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): And that's going to backfire.

HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.

Brit Hume: "[I]'s always easy to say what [Hastert] should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Well, I think that toward the end of the week it did begin to look a little brighter. I don't think the weekend revelations, Chris, are particularly important.

The former page of whom you speak was an adult, 21 years old, at the time, and was long out of the House page program. And it appears that Foley's pattern was that he would flirt with these pages, and sometimes in quite a lurid and disgusting way, but nothing ever happened physically until after they were out of the program. And heaven knows how many more will turn up to say that, yes, they, too, carried on with him after they were out of the program, so I -- and besides that, Foley's gone, in disgrace, finished. So how much more of the scandal can be fed by revelations about what he did is questionable.

As for what Hastert knew or didn't know, we probably won't know what the facts are on that until this investigation is concluded. However, let's look back at this a moment.

Let's assume that Hastert did know or that he decided he wanted to do more than simply issue a stern warning when he discovered these overly friendly but not X-rated emails. I think the defense that he makes, or that some make of him, that if he tried to do something really strong, he would have been accused of gay-bashing, there would have been charges that the Republicans were trying to out one of their own members solely because he was gay. It would not have been a pretty sight.

So history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think we can pretty well see what that one would have been. And it gives you an idea of -- it's always easy to say what he should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there.

Bill Kristol: "I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox News Sunday:

KRISTOL: Well, one would think, if one were Foley's chief staff and thought one's boss was doing something really wrong and immoral, one might not just be quiet for the next three years, if Hastert's chief of staff didn't act appropriately. Maybe they thought they had talked to Hastert and to Foley and things -- and he had subsided. Maybe there's some self-serving recollection going on here.

I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view. And this is -- I do honestly believe now the media is trying to stampede the social -- you know, they're treating social conservatives like idiots, for one thing, like children. "Oh my God, one of 230 House members was gay and a real creep, and, you know, and therefore we're not going to vote on the issues we care about, therefore we're going to abandon every position we have. We're going to retreat in shudder from the -- retreat in horror from the polls in November and let the Democrats win a majority."

It's not going to happen. The polls have not moved all week. That is the big fact that's going on. The media is trying to stampede the elections, confirm the Democratic victory, and it's not working.

 

Kristol: "No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what [Hastert] should have done that he didn't do." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Big Story:

JOHN GIBSON (host): With me now is Fox News political analyst Bill Kristol, who is the editor of The Weekly Standard. He actually spoke to Dennis Hastert just a short time ago.

Bill, what does Dennis Hastert say about this call for him to step town?

KRISTOL: Well, first, he's really repulsed, I think, by Foley's behavior. You know, Denny Hastert was a high school teacher and a high school coach, and this kind of attempt to exploit young boys, I mean, he -- it's just -- he seems really sickened by it.

He's angry at Foley for betraying his trust, his colleagues' trust, the voters of Florida's trust, these page -- pages' trust. He's also angry at the Democrats for making -- trying to make this a big political issue to divert attention from the real issues that should be debated in this congressional election, and I think he's disappointed in some of these few conservatives who I think foolishly have somehow lashed out at Denny Hastert.

The speaker seems to have done what he could have done given what knowledge he had at the time. No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what he should have done that he didn't do. And I think he's -- he says he's going to, you know, he's not resigning, and he's going to try to get the debate back to the issues.

Mort Kondracke: "Hastert's position is completely defensible." From the October 6, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

KONDRACKE: Look, I completely agree with what Jim Baker said, and Jim Baker is a very wise politician, that you give the -- you give the enemy one of your people, and they'll just be chomping after more. Look, I agree that Hastert's position is completely defensible, and what the Republicans need to do is to change the subject.

Now, what are they going to change the subject to? They don't, you know, they're not going to want to talk about Iraq. I guess they want to go back to terrorism. I don't think that arguing over Gerry Studds or Barney Frank is gonna -- is gonna really change the subject; it's just going to rivet attention back on this because, look, what the Republicans rely on for their base is morality voters, values voters, married women with children, and evangelicals, and those people are dismayed by this whole thing.

Bill O'Reilly: "Hastert's you know, being witch-hunted down." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And in the "Impact" segment tonight, the Foley controversy continues to dominate the media. The question now is there anything more here? And is the far left involved in exposing Congressman Foley?

Joining us now from the ABC News studio in New York City, the man who broke much of the story, investigative reporter Brian Ross.

Now we are hearing that the roof is going to fall in on Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hastert's guy issued us a statement just seconds ago, saying, look, Hastert didn't know anything about this. He heard a couple of inappropriate emails were sent. Nothing was sexual. Hastert's, you know, being witch hunted down. What do you have? What do you know? And is Hastert in trouble in your opinion?

[...]

O'REILLY: Whatever. But the fact remains that you tried to get a hold of Speaker Hastert. And so did I today. We both did. He will not talk to you. He will not talk to me. I think that's foolish. I think he has to go out and defend himself.

Because at this point, the heavy odds are that he's going to have to resign for the good of the Republican Party. Am I wrong?

ROSS: Hard for me to judge on the politics of it, but I can give you the facts. And that is that he has given inconsistent statements and actually forgot apparently that he was told about Foley earlier this year by Congressman Tom Reynolds, who today reasserted, "I told the Speaker. Maybe he forgot, but I did tell him."

O'REILLY: But what did he tell him? What did he tell him? You see, here's the real crux of this matter.

ROSS: Right, right.

O'REILLY: Did he tell him this guy is just flirting with these guys, and it is ridiculous, and it's embarrassing, and he's got to stop? Or did he tell him the guy's having a sexual deal on the Internet? See, that -

ROSS: No, he didn't tell him that.

O'REILLY: -- that is what it is.

ROSS: And, look, I know what happened here in terms of the timeline. Those sexually explicit instant messages were not really in anybody's possession outside of a handful of pages until last week -

O'REILLY: All right.

ROSS: -- when we got them from some former pages.

O'REILLY: So it's very possible that Hastert didn't know anything other than the guy's an idiot. He's just doing things that are just immature and ridiculous.

ROSS: Well, a hair more than that, according to Fordham. That this was -- because it was no secret among that group that Foley was likely gay, and that his attention to the young male pages, in particular, troubled a number of staff members.

O'REILLY: All right, so they did raise a red flag -

ROSS: They did.

O'REILLY: -- and apparently Hastert did not act upon. I think that's fair. Is that a fair statement?

ROSS: Well, he -- Scott Palmer, according to Fordham, at least, went and met with Foley. And then others also went there.

O'REILLY: OK, so I think it's a fair statement.

Now the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a far-left group. George Soros gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you're hearing?

ROSS: I'm not familiar with them. They didn't drive us, but I've since seen they have posted some of those original emails on their website. I don't think they had the ones that really are the ones as you say correctly are in contention.

O'REILLY: OK. Because we're trying to figure out who is driving this, who went to The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald, Fox News in Washington and got a hold of some emails.

The emails that we got a hold of were innocuous. There weren't any smoking gun. But we now believe, and The Wall Street Journal believes as well, that a George Soros-funded group drove this story. That could be an interesting wrinkle here.

But now, Fox runs with claims that Pelosi aides may have known about Massa's behavior

FoxNews.com: "Massave Problem." On March 11, FoxNews.com posted a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns." FoxNews.com posted the following image which linked to the article:

Malkin: "The stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed "now it's coming out that potentially her aides may have known about Congressman Eric Massa and some of the concerns that people had about his activity, sexual misconduct allegations, that maybe they knew as long ago as last year." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded: "[T]his is about Nancy Pelosi, and it is about that very pledge she made so publicly and ostentatiously to clean the swamp, to drain the swamp, and what she has done is overflown it -- overflowed it, and I think the stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And to hear her talk in such condescending and flippant tones about how her job is not to be a receiver of rumors -- that was the actual quote that she has given now -- what does that tell you about her vigilance regarding integrity among her majority members?"

America's Newsroom: There are "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago" about Massa. On the March 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer claimed there were "new questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about those incidents and, chiefly, when." Co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that there were "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago about some very questionable issues surrounding Eric Massa." Hemmer later asked Fox News reporter Steve Centanni, "What do we know about what Nancy Pelosi's staff first heard, and when, about these concerns about Massa?"

Seizing on allegations made by Rep. Bob Bishop (R-UT), Fox & Friends accused the Obama administration of moving ahead with a "secret" and "sinister" plan to "grab 12, 13 million acres, designating them as federal monuments." In fact, there is no such plan; the allegations are reportedly based on a "very preliminary" Department of Interior memo "brainstorming" possible "candidates" for monument status, and the Interior Department has said "[n]o decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration."

Fox & Friends baselessly accuses admin of "secret" "land grab" plan

Doocy: Document "says that the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres." On March 11, Fox & Friends hosts Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy hosted the Heritage Foundation's Becky Dunlop to discuss how "somebody got their hands on this Department of Interior document that says that the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres designating them as federal monuments." According to The Washington Post [archive],  Dunlop resigned her position as an assistant secretary in the Interior Department in 1989 after Republicans and Democrats in Congress "expressed fears that Dunlap was attempting to take two of the government's most sought-after positions and fill them with political appointees."

Carlson: Memo is a "secret document" and it's a "sinister" plan to "tie up land." Carlson stated that "some would argue" that the national monument designation is "a cover. It's a cover for what they actually want to do which is what you're alluding to, which is to tie up this land so that we can't mine this land in the future. Do you believe it's that sinister and this is why it's sort of a secret document?":

DUNLOP: The national monument designation actually takes land and makes it similar to national park land, which means there can really be no development and limited, not no activity, but limited activities. So it would really lock up coal and other minerals which we really need for energy, national security issues and jobs.

DOOCY: What's the monument part? National monument - usually people think that you're going to put a national monument on it.

DUNLOP: It's just a designation.

DOOCY: OK.

DUNLOP: It's a designation.

CARLSON: Well some would argue it's a cover. It's a cover for what they actually want to do which is what you're alluding to, which is to tie up this land so that we can't mine this land in the future. Do you believe it's that sinister and this is why it's sort of a secret document?

DUNLOP: Well the sinister part is lack of transparency. Our government - the way our government was founded, it was for the people to be involved in making decisions. The designation of national monuments is something that the president can do without going to Congress, which means there's really no public debate --

DOOCY: Yeah.

DUNLOP:--and the people are not considered in this decision. [Fox & Friends, 03/11/10]

During the segment, an on-screen graphic appeared calling the memo the "administration's secret agenda":

Carlson: Obama is "planning a massive land grab." On March 10, Carlson stated, "Information from a leaked memo show[s] how President Obama's administration is planning a massive land grab to designate more than 13 million acres of resource rich land across 11 states as federally controlled national monuments." Carlson and co-host Brian Kilmeade then hosted Bishop who said he wants to reform the process to give states "some say in what happens." Carlson asked "Are you saying environmentalists are in bed with the administration, and that they say they want to put up national monuments, but in fact, they want to keep land away from being able to be refined for resources?" Bishop said it's a "concern."

"Secret" memo lists 14 areas that "may be good candidates" for Monument status

Memo lists 14 "candidates" for National Monument designation. The Department of Interior memo lists 14 areas in Western states that "may be good candidates for National Monument designation under the Antiquities Act" and three areas "worthy of protection that are ineligible for Monument Designation and unlikely to receive legislative protection in the near term."  

FoxNews.com contradicts Doocy's claim that government is considering "grabbing 12, 13 million acres." A February 18 FoxNews.com article reported that the 14 areas listed "total more than 13 million acres." Contrary to Doocy's claim that "the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres," FoxNews.com reported, "Sources say President Obama is likely to choose two or three sites from the list, depending on their size, conservation value and the development threat to each one's environment."

 Memo indicates that assessment of public support would be completed before final decisions. Contrary to Dunlop's assertion that "there's really no public debate and the people are not considered in this decision," the memo itself states that "further evaluations should be completed prior to any final decision, including an assessment of public and Congressional support."

Interior Department: Memo was for "brainstorming," and no decisions have been made

New York Times: DOI spokesperson said "the list was not secret at all." The New York Times reported February 20 that a "spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a 'very, very, very preliminary,' internal working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the West." It quoted her statement that "[n]o decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration." From the Times article:

A new monument fight erupted this week when Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, said he had uncovered a "secret" Interior Department memorandum suggesting that the federal government was considering national monument designation for 14 huge blocks of land in nine states from Montana to New Mexico.

A spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a "very, very, very preliminary," internal working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the West.

"No decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration," Ms. Barkoff said in a statement.

[...]

Ms. Barkoff at the Interior Department said in an interview that Mr. Salazar, as Colorado's attorney general, United States senator and secretary of the interior, had a history of seeking consensus, and that any discussion of monument designation would be open to public and Congressional involvement.

Barkoff said Salazar asked for "brainstorming" about "which areas might be worth considering for further review." The Hill also reported that Barkoff said the memo was "the fruit of 'brainstorming' within Interior's Bureau of Land Management," and quoted her as saying, "Secretary Salazar believes it is important that the Department of the Interior serve as wise stewards of the places that matter most to Americans.  For that reason, he has asked DOI's bureaus to think about what areas might be worth considering for further review for possible special management or Congressional designation."

Referencing HBO's "The Sopranos," Cato Institute senior fellow Michael Tanner wrote in the New York Post that Democrats "are willing to use every trick in the book to get this [health care] bill passed." However, many of Tanner's allegations of suspect tactics by Democrats are not supported by the facts.

Tanner baselessly claimed Dems "considered holding up Brown's seating"

From Tanner's March 10 defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill that Bush signed did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Tanner falsely suggested Rep. Matheson has only recently signaled willingness to support health care reform

Tanner: "No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship." From Tanner's March 10 July 21, 2009, Matheson outlined "some of the substantial changes required before he could vote for" the House health care reform bill and "said the suggested changes represent what will be a common-sense, bipartisan proposal that shares many of the features under review by the U.S. Senate in their committee negotiations." In a November 6, 2009, press release, Matheson "said he will vote against HR 3962" because it does not ensure "that the health care system is secure, stable and affordable." The press release further noted that "Matheson said he is encouraged that a bipartisan, budget-deficit-neutral, cost-lowering bill is on the table in the Senate." After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced health care reform legislation to the Senate on November 18, Matheson reportedly reported on December 22, 2009, that Matheson "backs the tax on so-called 'Cadillac plans,' especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care inflation." Obama's proposal includes a version of the tax; the House plan does not. Moreover, The New York Times reported on October 28, 2009, that Matheson "prefers nonprofit member-run cooperatives, rather than a government plan." The Associated Press noted on February 22 that "Obama did not include the government-run insurance plan sought by some Democrats. He kept the Senate approach, which gives Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the government health plan available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit." The Salt Lake Tribune also reported on November 5, 2009, that Matheson proposed "drop[ping] the nationwide health insurance exchange called for in the [House] bill in favor of state-based exchanges." As the AP noted on February 22, "liberals hoped Obama would go with a national exchange like the House bill did, but he stuck with the Senate's state-based approach."

Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the "selling judgeships" smear "ridiculous" and "absurd." Politico's Chris Frates reported that Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guaranteed Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said." statement regarding Scott Matheson's appointment on March 4, saying, "Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson's nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time." Utah's Deseret News reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) congratulated Obama on his selection and praised Scott Matheson as "an excellent nominee." A March 5 The Salt Lake Tribune article noted that "pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons" have "called the claim simply absurd" and reported that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) "said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination."

Tanner misleadingly cited "special deals" Dems used to pass health reform

Tanner: Dems "bought votes with pork and special deals." From Tanner's March 10 op-ed:

Whether or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa's bizarre accusations of locker-room confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use every trick in the book to get this bill passed.

They've already bought votes with pork and special deals -- the "Louisiana purchase" ($300 million to bolster that state's Medicaid program, which swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the "Cornhusker kickback" ($100 million to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida's "Gator Aid" (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut hospitals, Montana asbestos abatement and so on.

"Louisiana Purchase" was necessary Medicaid fix. Contrary to the claim that funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill is a "trick ... to get this bill passed," the funds are urgently needed to fix the state's Medicaid problems, which are a result of Hurricane Katrina; moreover, many of the state's Republican lawmakers say the fix is necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing it in the bill.

PolitiFact: The "Gator Aid" provision was included in Senate Finance Committee bill and would have benefited seniors in multiple states, not just Florida. Contrary to Tanner's suggestion that a provision shielding Medicare Advantage enrollees living in certain areas was the "price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote" on the final Senate health care bill, PolitiFact noted that "Nelson's provision wasn't a last-minute addition. The Medicare Advantage exemption was included in the health care reform bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee in October." PolitiFact also stated that the provision would not only benefit seniors in Florida, but also "in Oregon, New York, New Jersey and California."

Obama proposal removes "Cornhusker kickback," "Gator Aid." Obama's February 22 proposed changes to the Senate health care bill would "[e]liminat[e] the Nebraska FMAP provision and provid[e] significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid."  On March 2, Obama stated, "[M]y proposal does not include the Medicare Advantage provision ... which provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other states."

In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Fox News Contributor Karl Rove falsely claimed that the Senate health care bill has "abortion-funding language," adds to the deficit and contains no immediate benefits. In fact, the Senate bill prohibits federal funding of abortion, contains numerous immediate benefits, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduces the deficit.

Rove: Senate bill funds abortion, adds to the deficit, and doesn't provide immediate benefits

Rove:  Senate bill contains "abortion funding language." In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Rove falsely suggested the Senate bill allowed for federal funding of abortion. Rove wrote, "Pro-life House Democrats are deeply disturbed by the Senate abortion-funding language."

Rove: "Senate bill adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit." Rove also falsely claimed the Senate bill would add to the deficit, writing, "Blue Dogs are upset by the fact that the Senate bill adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit."

Rove falsely suggested Senate bill contained no immediate "benefits." Rove also claimed that "[t]he Senate bill's tax increases and Medicare benefit cuts kick in right away while its benefits (subsidies for health-care coverage) don't start until 2013 and aren't fully operational for seven years," falsely suggesting that the only "benefits" in the bill are "subsidies for health-care coverage."

Senate bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by Hyde

The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

CBO: Senate health care bill will lower the deficit

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.

Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Rove's suggestion, according to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. The benefits include "access to affordable coverage for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions," "access to quality care for vulnerable populations," "no pre-existing coverage exclusions for children," "re-insurance for retiree health benefit plans," "closing the coverage gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit," "small business tax credits," "ensuring value for premium payments," protection of "patients' choice of doctors," "prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before" a "woman sees an ob-gyn," "ensuring access to emergency care," "extension of dependent coverage for young adults," "coverage of prevention and wellness benefits"; "free, annual wellness visit" for Medicare beneficiaries," a prohibition on "insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits," "restricted annual limits on coverage," and prohibiting "insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed," among other immediate benefits.

On March 3, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "we're going to pay taxes on this bill what for three, four years, before the bill is even implemented." In fact, numerous benefits contained in the Senate bill would become available in the first year after the bill is enacted.

Hannity: "We're going to pay taxes" for years before the bill is implemented

From the March 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: The math, it's never added up. And we keep forgetting one important fact here, and that is, we're going to pay taxes on this bill what for three, four years, before the bill is even implemented. I mean, that's like, alright, I'm going to pay -- I'm going to pay off my car for four years, but I don't get the car for four years. And that has not really been talked a lot -- a lot about.

Fact: Numerous benefits in Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

• The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

• The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

• The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

• The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

• The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.

Small Business Tax Credits

• The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.
• Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.

[...]

Patient Protections

• The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

• The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.

Free Prevention Benefits

• The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.
• Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

• The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

• The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.

Seizing on an absurd claim spread by right-wing blogs that President Obama wants to ban sport fishing, Glenn Beck stated on his Fox News program that Obama is attempting to prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing on some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, and great lakes "by executive order." In fact, there is no evidence of any such order, but rather a task force which seeks to "better manage" -- not ban -- recreational fishing alongside other uses of ocean, coasts, and lakes.

Beck forwards fishing ban myth

Beck: "No more fishing. ... People are losing their rights." On the March 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Beck stated:

BECK: A new report out today says it's a move to appease the environmental groups, and just like before, without your consent, done in darkness by executive order. I told you a year ago this would happen. I'm not some prophet by any stretch of the imaginations. The New York Times said this man would do this.

The report claims that Obama will no longer listen to the public as he tries to prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing on some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, and great lakes, even some inland waters. No more fishing. Really? Yeah, apparently some environmentalists want to save the fish. Forget about the frickin' fish. People are losing their rights. Who's more important: the fish or you?

He later revisited the topic, stating, "How about a fishing ban? A fishing ban that would put jobs at risk in the middle of an economic crisis, but beyond that, you and your son being told you can't go there to fish! What the hell is happening to us? How are people not seeing this? He's going to do it through executive powers, without consulting the public."

Myth is based on ESPN column later acknowledged to have "errors" and lack of "balance"

ESPNOutdoors.com has acknowledged "errors," lack of "balance" in piece sparking controversy. In a March 9 piece on ESPNOutdoors.com, Robert Montgomery wrote that the "Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters." ESPNOutdoors.com executive editor Steve Bowman later posted the following acknowledgement on the site:

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest piece in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of those -- it was an opinion piece, and should clearly have been labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of the topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

No evidence of executive order to ban fishing

Task force plan seeks to "better manage," not ban recreational fishing. In its September 10, 2009, interim report, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force recommended that the administration implement "coastal and marine spatial planning," which has been described as ocean "zoning." The interim report states that such a system "will allow for the reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on marine ecosystems, provide greater certainty for the public and private sector in planning new investments, and reduce conflicts among uses and, between using and preserving the environment to sustain critical ecological, economic, and cultural services for this and future generations." A December 9, 2009, task force report discussing coastal and marine spatial planning in more detail states that "CMSP provides an effective process to better manage a range of social, economic, and cultural uses, including" commerce and transportation, commercial fishing, conservation, mining, oil and gas exploration and development and recreational fishing, among many others. Nowhere in these two reports did the task force propose a ban on recreational fishing.

Fishing columnist Jeffrey Weeks: "ESPN should be ashamed." Charlotte Fishing Examiner.com columnist Jeffrey Weeks wrote on March 9: "In what may be the worst example of outdoor sports reporting in the history of America, ESPN has claimed that President Barack Obama is on the verge of banning recreational fishing." Weeks added: "Am I going to agree with everything that this task force does? Probably not. Issues like access to fishery grounds and over-regulation of species without sound scientific data are legitimate concerns. However, in no way shape or form is the task force President Obama created about to ban recreational fishing. That is silly. ESPN should be ashamed."

Marine biologist Larry Crowder: "It's not an environmentalist manifesto." The Christian Science Monitor reported on March 9 that Larry Crowder, a marine biology professor at Duke University, stated of the task force: "It's not an environmentalist manifesto." Crowded added: "It's multiple-use planning for the environment, and making sure various uses ... are sustainable." The Monitor further reported that "Obama has said he will not override protections put in place by Presidents Clinton and Bush that established recreational fishermen as a special class" and that "nonpartisan experts say the task force has already made strides in better recognizing various stakeholder groups, including recreational fishermen, and that it doesn't intend to undermine the ability of states to manage their natural resources, as many fishermen fear."

Glenn Beck claimed that President Obama was drastically changing the poverty scale in a way that would effectively classify Beck as "in poverty" because other people in his community are wealthier than he is. In fact, the measurement would supplement, not replace, the poverty measurement currently in use, and it would not count Beck as poor.

From the March 10 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Barack Obama has announced he's changing that scale. It's no longer how many potatoes -- how many potatoes you can buy. Can you buy a roof over your head, potatoes, gasoline, the basic necessities to stay afloat? No, no, no. It's now a comparative scale. So how much money do you have compared to others in your area?

PAT GRAY (co-host): Again, that's Marxist.

BECK: I would be -- I'd be in poverty. I'm probably the poorest guy that lives in my town. I live in -- I mean, New York has great concentrations of wealth.

[...]

BECK: I'm the poorest guy. I'd be on the poverty scale because I don't have as much as they have. You see what they're doing? What he's doing is constantly compare yourself to someone else. We don't do that in America. That's what got us here. What got us into this trouble is, well, they've got one. I want a flat screen. I want that. They have one. How come I don't have one? It's keeping up with the Joneses, period.

And look what they're creating. They are creating a cage that you'll never be able to get out of. And I'm not talking about -- you know, I'm not talking about a literal cage, I'm talking about a cage, a prison of laws and concepts. We're already -- we've already built a cage for our kids. We've already told them, ah, don't worry, everybody gets a trophy. No, they don't. Now, how are our kids going to get out of that cage that we all built for them? The cage that says you don't have to compete, you don't have to worry about it -- you'll get it, you're owed it, you deserve it. Well, they're not going to get what we've promised them. They're going to get what they deserve and what we deserve.

[...]

BECK: We are not living our personal lives in a way that we deserve anything better than what we're getting or are about to get. That's what must change. Not a new scale on how to measure poverty. And a poverty scale that has you compare yourself to your neighbors. Oh, my gosh. I mean, what are we doing? How do people with eyes not see it? How do people with ears not hear it? How many -- how many people got out of Cuba, got out of the Soviet Union, Poland, that are now looking at it and going, "America, wake up"?

Alternative measurement not replacing poverty measure in effect since 1960s

Commerce Dept.: Current poverty measure will "remain the definitive statistical measure." A March 2 press release by the U.S. Department of Commerce about the "Supplemental Poverty Measure" stated that the official poverty measure used since the 1960s "will remain the definitive statistical measure." It added that the alternative measure "will not be the measure used to estimate eligibility for government programs. Instead, it will be an additional macroeconomic statistic, providing further understanding of economic conditions and trends."

Alternative measurement would not classify Beck as poor

Wash. Post: Alternative measure would "consider expenses such as housing, utilities, child care and medical treatment." From a March 3 Washington Post article about the Supplemental Poverty Measure:

The old definition, developed in the mid-1960s using data from a decade earlier, was based on the cost of food and a family's cash income. The new one, acknowledging that food has become a smaller share of poor families' costs, will also consider expenses such as housing, utilities, child care and medical treatment. In gauging people's resources, the new method will include financial help from housing and food subsidies, in addition to money from jobs and cash assistance programs.

CAP: Alternative measure's "geographic adjustments" would "present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs." A March 2 report by the Center for American Progress states that a flaw of the current poverty measurement is that it "includes no adjustment for geographic disparities in cost of living. This means that two families with the same income -- one in Tate County, Mississippi and the other in Seattle, Washington -- are considered equally as well off despite the fact that fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $574 per month in the former and $987 per month in the latter." The report notes that the alternative measurement would address this by including "some form of geographic adjustments that present a more realistic relationship between cost of living and what it takes to meet basic needs."

Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson stated that appeals court nominee Judge Robert Chatigny "gained notoriety" for "fight[ing] the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross," adding that "[s]ome are concerned he may be biased in favor of sex offenders." However, an appeals court panel -- which included former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey -- found that Chatigny's actions in the case were "reasonable" and "not motivated by any bias."

Carlson: "Some are concerned that he may be biased in favor of sex offenders"

Carlson: "Some are concerned" Chatigny "may be biased in favor of sex offenders." On the March 10 Fox & Friends, Carlson reported that "today's hearing for Judge Robert Chatigny now postponed after a prosecutor from his home state called him a 'judicial loose cannon.' " Carlson added: "Chatigny gained notoriety five years ago for trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, known as 'The Roadside Strangler.' Some are concerned he may be biased in favor of sex offenders."

Fox News.com: "Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying." A March 9 FoxNews.com article reported, that Chatigny's Senate hearing was postponed "after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting the candidate as a judicial loose cannon and after Republicans raised concerns about bias in favor of sex offenders." The article further stated that "Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying." Despite noting that Chatigny was ultimately "cleared of misconduct," the FoxNews.com article quoted Michael O'Hare, a Connecticut assistant state's attorney, stating that "Judge Chatigny completely abandoned the role of neutral and detached magistrate and instead became an advocate for the position held by the parties who were seeking to stop the execution of Michael Ross." The headline of the article asserted that Chatigny "supported serial killer":

Appeals court panel found Chatigny's actions "reasonable" and "not motivated by any bias"

In 2005 conference call, Chatigny strongly expressed concern that Ross' lawyer was not sufficiently investigating evidence regarding Ross' mental competency. In 1987, Michael Ross was found guilty of the murder of four of the eight women he confessed to killing. The New York Times reported that Ross "did not fight the state's execution plans. He has said repeatedly that he is prepared to die -- that he hoped his death would ease the pain of his victims' relatives -- and he repeatedly waived his rights to appeal." The Times reported that others had argued that "Mr. Ross is simply masking a desire to commit suicide." On January 29, 2005, the Hartford Courant reported that during a conference call hours before Ross' scheduled execution, Chatigny "in often brutally frank language, made it clear he thought Paulding [Ross' lawyer] should be doing more" (accessed via Nexis):

With the hours counting down on Michael Ross' life, Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny initiated an extraordinary telephone conference call Friday afternoon in which he pleaded with Ross' attorney to make sure that in supporting his client's determination to die, he wasn't making "the biggest mistake of [his] life.''

"What you are doing is terribly, terribly wrong,'' Chatigny told attorney T.R. Paulding, who has maintained that Ross is clear-headed and voluntarily choosing death. "No matter how well motivated you are, you have a client whose competence is in serious doubt and you don't know what you're talking about.

"I see this happening and I can't live with it myself, which is why I'm on the phone right now. It's wrong. What you're doing is wrong.''

Alternating between pleas and threats, Chatigny chastised Paulding's representation, saying a lawyer for a death-row inmate has an obligation to try to persuade him to fight for his life.

"I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life,'' the judge said. "And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted.''

Chatigny told Paulding that if an investigation corroborated recent claims that prison officials had mistreated Ross and other death-row inmates -- and that the psychological effects of Ross' prison conditions might have driven him to prefer death -- "I'll have your law license.''

The conference call -- which included eight lawyers respectively representing the attorney general, the chief state's attorney, the public defenders office and Ross' father -- came after courts twice rebuffed Chatigny's rulings halting Ross' execution. In both cases, Chatigny agreed with arguments that there are questions about Ross' mental capacity to forgo his appeals.

Although there was nothing formally pending in Chatigny's court in either case, the judge said he was compelled to bring the lawyers together, telling Paulding: "I believe that as an officer of the court who is facilitating the execution of his client, I as the chief judge of the court have to be sure that you are doing everything that one should do ethically in this situation.''

For most of the next 55 minutes, Chatigny, in often brutally frank language, made it clear he thought Paulding should be doing more.

Ross was later ruled to be competent and was executed May 13, 2005.

Appeals court, which included Mukasey, found Chatigny's concern "reasonable" and "not motivated by any bias." As the Hartford Courant reported on January 28, 2006, Chatigny was "cleared of misconduct by a review panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals." The panel consisted of three judges, including Michael Mukasey, who went on to become President Bush's attorney general. The Courant stated of the panel's findings (from Nexis):

"Without doubt, Judge Chatigny's actions were unusual,'' a special committee consisting of three judges concluded. "But in the judge's reasonable view, the circumstances thrust on him called for unusual action. ... ''

Those circumstances included challenges by family members and lawyers that serial killer Michael Ross was not mentally competent to waive further appeals and "volunteer'' for execution, and the staunch defense of Ross' competence and right to choose his fate by attorney T.R. Paulding.

[...]

The special committee -- composed of 2nd Circuit Chief Judge John W. Walker Jr., circuit Judge Pierre Leval and Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the Southern District of New York -- said in its 45-page report, "It is fairly arguable ... that some of what [Chatigny] said was susceptible to misunderstanding and might better have been left unsaid.

"We are persuaded, however, that the judge's actions were not motivated by any bias in favor of Ross or against the death penalty but only by the judge's reasonable perception that the discharge of his own judicial duty ... required that he take forceful steps on Ross' behalf.''

[...]

Chatigny, in correspondence with the special committee to answer the judges' inquiries, stated that some of his remarks to Paulding were "too vehement,'' and also said that he apologized to Paulding the next day.

"He added that he regretted both his choice of words and any embarrassment he may have caused to the court system,'' the report states of Chatigny.

Several legal experts defended Chatigny's actions at the time

NYT: Legal ethics expert said, "These are extraordinary acts by the judge but the situation is extraordinary." A February 2, 2005, New York Times article reported that Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., described as "a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who has written extensively on legal ethics and professional responsibility," said of Chatigny's actions: ''These are extraordinary acts by the judge but the situation is extraordinary."

NYT: UConn Law School associate dean: "[W]ith a man's life on the line this was for keeps. Death is unique in the law. There's nothing you can do after Ross is dead to fix it.'' The same Times article reported: "Paul Chill, a clinical professor and associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said focusing on Judge Chatigny's conduct in the call detracted from the larger issue. 'He clearly stretched the bounds of propriety, if not judicial ethics, in doing what he did,' Professor Chill said. 'But with a man's life on the line this was for keeps. Death is unique in the law. There's nothing you can do after Ross is dead to fix it.' ''

Connecticut Bar Association co-chairman: Chatigny's "conduct may seem unusual, but this was an unusual case." A February 3, 2005, News-Times article reported that James "Tim" Shearin, then the co-chairman of the Connecticut Bar Association's Federal Practice Section, "said that Chatigny's conduct may seem unusual, but this was an unusual case." The article quoted Shearin as saying, "This case is unlike anything else we've seen on the Connecticut landscape. ... The sense is a judge has inherent authority if he believes the attorney is not conducting himself properly. He was reacting to evidence that came up."

On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity became the latest Fox News personality to defend Glenn Beck's statement that President Obama is "a racist," joining News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch and Fox News president Roger Ailes. Discussing Beck's comments, Hannity stated, "When the president hangs out with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, I'm -- can one conclude that there are issues with the president?"

Beck: Obama is a "racist"

Beck: Obama a "racist" who has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." On the July 28, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, Beck discussed remarks Obama had made about the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and declared that in his response to the arrest, Obama "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." Beck added that Obama is a "racist." Fox News senior vice president of programming Bill Shine stated later that day that Beck "expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions."

Hannity latest Fox News personality to defend Beck's comments

Hannity defends Beck: "Can one conclude that there are issues with the president, black liberation theology?" On the March 9 edition his Fox News' show, Hannity discussed Dan Rather's comment that Obama "couldn't sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic." Hannity stated that Beck has "never said anything over the top, like what Dan Rather said." After guest Penny Lee brought up that Beck "called the president of the United States, almost -- referred to him as a racist," Hannity defended Beck, saying: "But wait a minute. Wait, hang on a second. When the president hangs out with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, I'm -- can one conclude that there are issues with the president, black liberation theology?"

Murdoch on Beck's claim that Obama is "racist": "[H]e was right." In a November 6, 2009, interview with Sky News Australia political editor David Speers, Murdoch declared that while Beck "perhaps shouldn't have" said it, Beck was "right." From the interview:

SPEERS: Glenn Beck, who you mentioned, has called Barack Obama a racist, and he helped organize a protest against him. Others on Fox have likened him --

MURDOCH: Yeah.

SPEERS: -- to Stalin. Is that defensible?

MURDOCH: No, no, no, not Stalin, I don't think. I don't know who that -- not one of our people. On the racist thing, that caused a [unintelligible]. But he did make a very racist comment, about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, and which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And, you know, that was something which perhaps shouldn't have been said about the president, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right.

News Corp. spokesman Gary Ginsberg subsequently stated that Murdoch "does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist." Politico's Michael Calderone reported that Ginsberg said it's "not the case" that Murdoch shares Beck's view, "but did not comment further."

After questioned by Media Matters, Murdoch appears to deny claiming that Obama made a "racist" comment. On November 19, 2009, Media Matters for America staff member Ben Fishel asked Murdoch if he "could be more clear about what racist comments the president allegedly made." Murdoch said: "I denied that absolutely. ... I don't believe he's a racist." Murdoch did not respond when further pressed to explain his remarks.

Ailes claims Beck said "one unfortunate thing," and "he apologized for" it. During the January 31 edition of ABC's This Week, Ailes discussed Beck's comments and stated, "I don't -- I think he speaks English. I don't know, but I mean, I don't misinterpret any of his words. He did say one unfortunate thing, which he apologized for, but that happens in live television." Ailes did not specify which of Beck's assertions he was referring to, but assuming that Ailes was referring to Beck's claim that Obama is "a racist," the claim that Beck "apologized" for the remark is false. In fact, Beck asserted that "it is a serious question" and apologized only for "the way it was phrased," noting that "living in a soundbite world [is] really a nasty place to live." From the September 22, 2009, edition of @KatieCouric:

COURIC: You stand behind your assertion that in your view, President Obama is a racist?

BECK: I believe that Americans should ask themselves tough questions.

BECK [video clip]: This guy is, I believe, a racist.

COURIC: Are you sorry you said that at all?

BECK: I'm sorry the way it was phrased, because I think everybody has to -- living in a soundbite world -- really a nasty place to live. And it is a serious question that I think needs serious discussion.

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen falsely claimed that "all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee" were asking questions similar to those posed by Liz Cheney's controversial ad campaign attacking Justice Department attorneys who previously represented terrorism detainees. In fact, Sen. Lindsey Graham -- a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee -- has joined numerous conservatives in criticizing the ad's attacks.

Thiessen: "All the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee" echoed attacks on DOJ lawyers

From the March 9 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:

STEWART: Boy, this is all just bubbling up. This whole Keeping America Safe with Liz Cheney's group; you wrote an editorial, basically -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you felt that Liz Cheney was being unfairly maligned by these people attacking these ads.

THIESSEN: Absolutely. I mean, I think she raises a legitimate question. And it's not just her. It's the -- all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If a mob lawyer was hired to -- if a bunch of mob lawyers were hired to handle mob cases in the Justice Department, it would be a legitimate question to ask who are they, who did they represent, what cases are they involved in?

Graham -- Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- has criticized Cheney's ad

Graham reportedly said the ad was "inappropriate and unfairly demonized DOJ lawyers for doing a noble public service." Josh Rogin reported in Foreign Policy's The Cable blog:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, told The Cable Tuesday that the Cheney-Kristol ad was inappropriate and unfairly demonized DOJ lawyers for doing a noble public service by defending unpopular suspects.

"I've been a military lawyer for almost 30 years, I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts, and I gave them my all," said Graham. "This system of justice that we're so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer."

Rogin further reported: " 'I'm with Kenneth Starr on this one,' Graham added, referring to a letter signed by several GOP lawyers, many of whom defended Bush-era detainee policies, condemning the 'al Qaeda 7' ad."

Conservatives and former Bush officials have condemned attacks on the lawyers as "shameful" and "wrong"

Conservatives have condemned Cheney's attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful." Former Bush administration officials Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, as well as attorneys who dealt directly with detainee policy signed a letter stating that the attacks on the Justice Department lawyers are "shameful" and that the attacks "undermine the Justice system." The New York Times reported on March 4 that Keisler, "who led the Bush administration's courtroom defense against lawsuits filed by Guantanamo detainees is denouncing attacks on Obama administration appointees who previously helped such prisoners challenge their indefinite detention without trial." Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (subscription required) that it is "wrong to criticize attorneys who represent alleged terrorists." In addition, former Bush administration lawyer John Bellinger said of the attacks on the DOJ lawyers, "I think those sorts of cheap shots suggesting that a lawyer who is simply defending a client somehow shares those views are -- really are inappropriate."

Sessions reportedly called ad "over the top and unjustified." Foreign Policy's Rogin further reported, "Even senior Republicans who agreed with the ad's criticism of Holder's appointment of the lawyers said that the ad was beyond the pale." Rogin then quoted Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying, "An ad that says it's the Department of Jihad is over the top and unjustified."

Following the lead of an ESPNOutdoors.com opinion writer, who provided no evidence for his claim that a federal strategy "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing," right-wing blogs have advanced the outlandish charge that Obama "wants to ban sport fishing." These media outlets cited the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's interim report on coastal and marine planning, but the task force has proposed nothing of the sort.

Right wing seizes on unfounded speculation by ESPN writer

ESPN column: Federal strategy "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters." On March 9, Robert Montgomery wrote for EPSNOutdoors.com: "The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is 'fluid' and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters." Montgomery's post, which was also this much serious consideration is an indication of just how far left Obama has shifted the federal government."

RedState: "Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I'LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing." In a March 9 RedState post titled, "Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I'LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing," Dave Poff quoted the ESPN column's claim that the Obama administration's plan "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters." Poff also stated, "*Now* he means to ration recreational fishing and boating, folks," adding that Obama has been "[p]lotting a Federal takeover of all our bodies of water (freshwater...saltwater...doesn't matter), in an effort to set up MORE bureaucracies and circumvent the rights of the States to determine fair use and access rules amongst themselves based on the local interests of everyone involved."

Malkin: "Obama's war on fishing?!?!?!" In a March 9, post titled, "Obama's war on fishing?!?!?!" Michelle Malkin posted the ESPN column's claim that "[t]he Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters." Malkin added, "Longtime readers know I love to fish and have been at war with the anti-fishing nuts at PETA for years."

ESPN column, right-wing bloggers provided no evidence to substantiate claim

ESPN column doesn't support claim that Obama plans to ban sport fishing. Montgomery speculated about "collusion" between "green groups," who "would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling," and the Obama administration, but did not provide any evidence to support his assertion that the federal strategy "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters." In fact, later in his column, Montgomery wrote that "the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling," adding, "but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening."

Task force plan seeks to "better manage," not ban recreational fishing alongside other uses of ocean, coasts, lakes. In its September 10, 2009, interim report, the Interagency Ocean Policy task force recommended that the administration implement "coastal and marine spatial planning," which has been described as ocean "zoning." The interim report states that such a system "will allow for the reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on marine ecosystems, provide greater certainty for the public and private sector in planning new investments, and reduce conflicts among uses and, between using and preserving the environment to sustain critical ecological, economic, and cultural services for this and future generations." A December 9, 2009, task force report discussing coastal and marine spatial planning in more detail states that "CMSP provides an effective process to better manage a range of social, economic, and cultural uses, including" commerce and transportation, commercial fishing, conservation, mining, oil and gas exploration and development and recreational fishing, among many others. Nowhere in the September 10 or December 9 reports does the task force propose a ban on recreational fishing.

Fishing columnist Jeffrey Weeks: "ESPN should be ashamed." Charlotte Fishing Examiner columnist Jeffrey Weeks wrote on March 9: "In what may be the worst example of outdoor sports reporting in the history of America, ESPN has claimed that President Barack Obama is on the verge of banning recreational fishing." Weeks added, "Am I going to agree with everything that this task force does? Probably not. Issues like access to fishery grounds and over-regulation of species without sound scientific data are legitimate concerns. However, in no way shape or form is the task force President Obama created about to ban recreational fishing. That is silly. ESPN should be ashamed."

Marine biologist Larry Crowder: "It's not an environmentalist manifesto." The Christian Science Monitor reported on March 9 that marine biologist Larry Crowder, of Duke University, stated of the task force, "It's not an environmentalist manifesto. It's multiple-use planning for the environment, and making sure various uses ... are sustainable." CSM further reported that "Obama has said he will not override protections put in place by Presidents Clinton and Bush that established recreational fishermen as a special class" and that "nonpartisan experts say the task force has already made strides in better recognizing various stakeholder groups, including recreational fishermen, and that it doesn't intend to undermine the ability of states to manage their natural resources, as many fishermen fear."

Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that he will not, in fact, ban fishing." In a March 9 post titled, "ESPN: Obama may ban recreational fishing or something," Hot Air blogger Allahpundit wrote, "I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that he will not, in fact, ban fishing, but the meta-narrative is so irresistible - elitist President Arugula coming to grab the bitter-clingers' rods and reels! - that it simply must be blogged. Odds of a Palin Facebook comment: High." Referring to the jobs dependent on recreational fishing, Allahpundit further stated, "Think The One's going to hand Republicans that talking point in this political climate? How excited do you suppose red-district Democrats will be to see the White House bring down the hammer on fly fishermen with an election eight months away?"

Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen appeared on Fox & Friends to promote his attacks on Department of Justice lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects and other detainees. Thiessen claimed the lawyers were "trying to spring terrorists out of Guantanamo" and again distorted DOJ lawyer Jennifer Daskal's past legal arguments.

Thiessen misrepresents Daskal's views on releasing detainees

Thiessen: Daskal "said even if we know they'll go out and kill Americans, we should still release them." From the March 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: First off, Marc, do you think -- do you think it's wrong to defend criminals? If you're a defense lawyer for a bad guy, whether it's Sammy the Bull or John Gotti, does that make you bad? Is that what they're doing?

THIESSEN: No, but they - I mean, well, first of all, what these people did, most of them, was not defend people who were in the criminal justice system. The sixth amendment says that if you're accused of a crime, you get to have legal representation. What these people were doing, most of them, was trying to spring terrorists out of Guantanamo who were held under the laws of war. Send them back out to the battlefield where they - where we have evidence they've killed Americans since. And one of these lawyers, Jennifer Daskal, has actually said even if we know that they will go out and kill Americans, we should still release them.

In fact, Daskal argued that holding detainees indefinitely without charge is "a greater threat to the United States." From Daskal's Human Rights Watch report, "How to Close Guantanamo":

An insurgency like al Qaeda is not static, but fluid and dynamic. If the particular detainees in Guantanamo are kept out of circulation, others can -- and will -- fight in their place. The supply outstrips demand. The high-profile detentions of a few dozen potentially dangerous men in Guantanamo do little to make the United States safer. To the contrary, it delegitimizes U.S. moral authority, helps to fuel the "recuperative power" of the enemy, and undercuts critical efforts to win hearts and minds.

The United States should do everything it can to mitigate the risks posed by the release of these men. It should press their home countries to lawfully monitor returned detainees' activities and to charge and detain anyone who commits a criminal act. But some countries are unable or unwilling to take on that role. Nearly 100 of the remaining Guantanamo detainees are Yemeni. It is unlikely that the United States will ever be adequately satisfied that Yemen is taking sufficient steps to monitor and respond to acts of terrorism within its borders. Does that mean that these Yemenis should be locked up without charge -- possibly until the ends of their lives -- based on an assessment that they might pose a future risk? No. They should be released. Doing so will require an assumption of risk. It will require the United States to accept that at least some of these men may cross the border and join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day.

General Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. drug czar, following an academic mission to Guantanamo Bay, advised the Pentagon: World opinion is so united against the detention facility that "there is now no possible political support for Guantanamo going forward." It "may be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat then sit on them the next 15 years."

General McCaffrey makes a point. Those detained at Guantanamo present a greater threat to the United States than they would if they returned to the battlefield, where -- under the laws of war -- they can be shot and killed on sight.

Supreme Court found that Bush admin violated detainee rights in cases at issue

Thiessen claimed DOJ lawyers were "trying to spring terrorists out of Guantanamo" in order to "send them back to the battlefield." Thiessen stated: "The sixth amendment says that if you're accused of a crime, you get to have legal representation. What these people were doing, most of them, was trying to spring terrorists out of Guantanamo who were held under the laws of war. Send them back out to the battlefield where they - where we have evidence they've killed Americans since." This echoes a claim Thiessen made in a March 8 Post column, in which he wrote: "The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war."

Supreme Court repeatedly found that Bush administration was violating detainee's rights. According to a Foxnews.com blog post cited by Thiessen in his column, two of the Justice Department attorneys at issue represented "six Bosnian-Algerian detainees held at Guantanamo Bay," including Lakhdar Boumediene. In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court found that the Bush administration had violated Guantánamo detainees' constitutional right to present habeas corpus petitions to civilian courts. In addition, the Foxnews.com blog post noted that another of the DOJ lawyers was Neal Katyal, who represented Salim Hamdan in the Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Bush administration had violated the Geneva Conventions in its handling of detainees.

Numerous conservatives and former Bush officials have condemned attacks on the lawyers as "shameful," and "wrong"

Numerous conservatives condemned Liz Cheney's attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful." During the segment, Kilmeade noted that Liz Cheney and her group Keep America Safe "took out an ad saying let's unearth these names [of the lawyers who represented detainees]...and condemn these people," but that former Clinton administration Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had "said it was wrong for Liz Cheney's group to do that." Indeed, in addition to Starr, numerous conservatives signed a letter stating that the attacks on the Justice Department lawyers are "shameful." They also said the attacks "undermine the Justice system." Politico's Ben Smith reported that the signers include:

[F]ormer Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, John Ashcroft's No. 2, and Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general during President Bush's second term. They also include several lawyers who dealt directly with detainee policy: Matthew Waxman and Charles "Cully" Stimson, who each served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs; Daniel Dell'Orto, who was acting general counsel for the Department of Defense; and Bradford Berenson, a prominent Washington lawyer who worked on the issues as an associate White House counsel during President Bush's first term.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also called the attacks "wrong." In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Michael Mukasey, who served as Attorney General under George W. Bush, wrote that it's "wrong to criticize attorneys who represent alleged terrorists." From Mukasey's op-ed:

It is plainly prudent for us to assure that no government lawyers are bringing to their public jobs any agenda driven by views other than those that would permit full-hearted enforcement of laws that fall within their responsibility-whether those laws involve prosecution of drug dealers, imposition of the death penalty, or detention of those who seek to wage holy war against the United States. It's also prudent that Congress exercise its long-established oversight responsibility to provide that assurance.

But that prudence is not properly exercised by arguing that lawyers who defended drug cases, or worked on defense teams in death-penalty cases, or helped bring legal proceedings in behalf of those detained as terrorists, are automatically to be identified with their former clients and regarded as a fifth column within the Justice Department. The rules of conduct of the District of Columbia bar, for example, direct that representation of a client not be portrayed as endorsement of the client's views or behavior.

If the Department of Justice comes to attract only lawyers who have spent their professional energy principally in avoiding matters of controversy, the quality of lawyers willing to serve at the department will decline, and the department will suffer, as will we all.

Former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler reportedly says it's "wrong" to attack DOJ lawyers . The New York Times reported on March 4 that former Bush administration official Peter D. Keisler, "who led the Bush administration's courtroom defense against lawsuits filed by Guantanamo detainees is denouncing attacks on Obama administration appointees who previously helped such prisoners challenge their indefinite detention without trial." From the Times report:

Peter D. Keisler, who was assistant attorney general for the civil division in the Bush administration, said in an interview that it was "wrong" to attack lawyers who volunteered to help such lawsuits before joining the Justice Department.

"There is a longstanding and very honorable tradition of lawyers representing unpopular or controversial clients," Mr. Keisler said. "The fact that someone has acted within that tradition, as many lawyers, civilian and military, have done with respect to people who are accused of terrorism - that should never be a basis for suggesting that they are unfit in any way to serve in the Department of Justice."

Former Bush lawyer John Bellinger calls attacks "inappropriate" "cheap shots." On the March 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, former Bush administration lawyer John Bellinger said of the attacks on the DOJ lawyers, "I think those sorts of cheap shots, suggesting that a lawyer who is simply defending a client somehow shares those views, are -- really are inappropriate." Bellinger also stated, "John Adams represented Tories who were accused of treason back in the revolution. This is the sort of work that we ought be applauding and not attacking."

Former military commissions prosecutor under Bush Col. Morris Davis reportedly calls attacks "outrageous." The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman reported on March 2 that Air Force Col. Morris Davis (Ret.), who served as a chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions during the Bush administration, called the attacks on the DOJ lawyers "absolutely outrageous." Referencing recent attacks on DOJ officials Neal Katyal and Jennifer Daskal, Morris reportedly said, "It is absolutely outrageous ... to try to tar and feather Neal and Jennifer and insinuate they are al-Qaeda supporters."

Former Bush lawyer Reginald Brown calls attacks "beyond a cheap shot." According to a March 4 Washington Post article, former Bush lawyer Reginald Brown stated, "It's beyond a cheap shot to suggest that a lawyer is an al-Qaeda sympathizer because he advocates a detainee's position in the Supreme Court."

Former head of OLC under Clinton also slams attacks on DOJ lawyers as "shameful." In a March 5 Washington Post op-ed, Walter Dellinger, head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, wrote that "[t]he only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers -- and on the integrity of our legal system -- is shameful. Shameful."

Fox & Friends has previously attacked DOJ lawyers who have represented terror suspects

Doocy wonders if DOJ lawyers are "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause." During the February 22 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated: "At least nine of President Obama's appointees to the Department of Justice have either represented Gitmo detainees -- they were their attorneys -- or advocated for Gitmo detainees." Doocy later added, "[A]nd the argument continues, you know, if they represented these guys, are they sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?

Carlson: "It's almost like it was a job requirement to have defended" a terrorist. On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said of the Justice Department lawyers, "It's almost like it was a job requirement to have defended a" terrorist. She then asked, "Seriously, when somebody finally exposes this, this is trouble, is it not?"

Fox & Friends guest McCarthy: This is "something to be very concerned about if they're now in the position of making counterterrorism policy." During the March 5 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade asked guest Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online: "What should we know when nine Department of Justice lawyers are involved -- they're hired right now -- were involved in advocating for Al Qaeda terrorists when they were at Gitmo before they got this job, when President Bush was in the White House." McCarthy replied, in part: "Well, obviously I think the fact that they voluntarily represented America's enemies is something to be very concerned about if they're now in the position of making counterterrorism policy."

On the March 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and former CNN host Lou Dobbs suggested that undocumented immigrants "dodge taxes," with O'Reilly asserting that the notion that they pay taxes is "crap." In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration, undocumented immigrants pay all kinds of taxes, including individual income, sales, property, and social security taxes.

O'Reilly: "You know it's crap" that undocumented immigrants pay taxes

From the March 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

DOBBS: I think people have to understand clearly and unequivocally that this is not a substitute for border security, nor port security. We still have to survey what is happening with cargo being brought into this country. We still have responsibility for the security of our borders.

O'REILLY: Right. But it's getting better down on the southern border. I mean, that fence is working, and partially due to the economy, there are much fewer aliens. But, look, here's the big deal on this ID card: the money that would come in to the U.S. Treasury would be enormous because you can't dodge taxes anymore. You can't get paid off the books anymore --

DOBBS: Bill, what are you talking about?

O'REILLY: -- you know.

DOBBS: All of the open borders advocates -- all of the unconditional amnesty advocates say that illegal immigrants are already paying taxes.

O'REILLY: No, that's all talk. You know it's crap.

In fact, undocumented immigrants do pay taxes

CBO: "[I]mmigrants pay individual income, sales, and property taxes." In a December 2007 report detailing the impact of undocumented immigrants on the budgets of local and state governments, CBO found that "[a]ccording to available estimates," there were about "12 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States" at the time and "those immigrants pay individual income, sales, and property taxes." CBO further reported that "the IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year. Other researchers estimate that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes."

From the CBO report [footnotes omitted]:

According to available estimates, there are about 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Federal, state, and local governments spend public funds that benefit those immigrants, and those immigrants pay individual income, sales, and property taxes. Most available studies conclude that the unauthorized population pays less in state and local taxes than it costs state and local governments to provide services to that population. However, those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states.

CBO also stated:

Data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) suggest that some unauthorized immigrants use false or fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers (SSNs) to satisfy paperwork requirements during the hiring process and that employers use those numbers to withhold federal, state, and local income and payroll taxes for employees. Workers who do not qualify for SSNs can use Individual Tax Identification Numbers issued by the IRS to file tax returns, make payments, and apply for refunds. Although there are no reliable data on unauthorized immigrants' rate of compliance with tax laws, the IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year. Other researchers estimate that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. For example:

The SSA assumes that about half of unauthorized immigrants pay Social Security taxes.

Several of the states whose estimates CBO reviewed used a model developed by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) to determine state and local taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants. ITEP assumes a 50 percent compliance rate for income and payroll taxes.

Researchers from the Urban Institute, the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Center for Immigration Studies have assumed a 55 percent compliance rate for income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes.

As part of a larger study on migration, the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego conducted a survey of unauthorized immigrants and found that, in 2006, 75 percent had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both.

SSA: "Among illegal immigrants, SSA actuaries currently assume that about half actually pay social security taxes." In a December 2005 brief by the Social Security Advisory Board on immigration, the section examining the impact of immigration effects on social security finances stated that "[a]mong illegal immigrants, SSA actuaries currently assume that about half actually pay social security taxes although they are very unlikely to collect benefits."

CBPP: "[U]nauthorized immigrants paid as much as $13 billion in Social Security payroll taxes in 2007." In a November 2008 piece summarizing a report on immigration by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, senior fellow Paul N. Van de Water wrote that, according to Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, "unauthorized immigrants paid as much as $13 billion in Social Security payroll taxes in 2007. About $1 billion in benefit payments were made based on unauthorized work."

From Van de Water's November 20, 2008, post:

The presence of unauthorized (undocumented) workers in the United States also has a positive effect on the financial status of Social Security. The earnings of unauthorized workers are less likely to be reported for tax purposes than the earnings of the rest of the population and even less likely to result in future benefits, according to Social Security's chief actuary.  Although the magnitudes cannot be precisely determined, the actuary has estimated that unauthorized immigrants paid as much as $13 billion in Social Security payroll taxes in 2007.  About $1 billion in benefit payments were made based on unauthorized work (for example, survivor benefits paid to U.S. citizens who were dependents of deceased individuals who had made payments into the Social Security system while performing unauthorized work).  Thus, undocumented immigrants improved Social Security's cash flow by an estimated $12 billion in 2007.

The New York Times also reported in an April 2005 article: " 'Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration."

Dobbs' long history of immigration misinformation

Dobbs has a long history of spreading immigration information and conspiracy theories. He has routinely discussed the North American Union conspiracy theory, incorrectly claimed that undocumented immigrants drain social services and don't pay taxes, and repeatedly amplified the falsehood that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately violent. He has been an unrepentant purveyor of hateful attacks, fraudulently claiming, for example, that immigrants are spreading leprosy and seek to reconquer the southwestern United States. And in 2009, he legitimized the thoroughly debunked birther conspiracy theory concerning the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate.

After highlighting reports last week that the House ethics committee was investigating whether former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) had sexually harassed a member of his staff, conservative media pivoted to promote Massa's subsequent claim that the Democratic leadership had orchestrated the investigation in order to force him out of office because he opposes health care reform legislation.

Hannity compares Massa to Foley, then runs with Massa's allegations

Hannity on March 3: "[R]emember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was?" On the March 3 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated (transcript from the Nexis database):

HANNITY: All right, remember how big an issue the Mark Foley case was leading into the 2006 elections? "Politico" reported earlier today that this guy, one-term congressman, Eric Massa, also from New York.

I don't know what's in the water in New York these days. But according to several House aides on both sides of the aisle, you know, this guy is married with two kids, who's being accused -- he's denying it -- but being accused of sexually harassing a male staffer.

Now do you remember the outrage then? So how big an issue -- I guess is my question -- how big an issue is corruption now going to be as we head into these midterms? You think it's going to matter?

Hannity on March 8: "[I]t looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House." During the March 8 edition of Hannity (from Nexis), Hannity stated that "the White House appears to be resorting to desperate measures to pass a government-run health care takeover. New York Congressman Eric Massa who resigned early this evening says the Democrats are starting to eat their own." After playing audio comments of Massa criticizing the administration and congressional Democrats, Hannity stated that "it looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House."

Limbaugh: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story"

Limbaugh on March 3: "Man, oh man, oh man." On the March 3 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated, "Man, oh man, oh man. New York Congressman Eric Massa, a Democrat, will not seek re-election after only one term in orifice. Literally." After reading allegations reportedly made against Massa, Limbaugh added, "I wonder if he's gonna -- could this be one less vote for Pelosi? I don't know. Doubt it. He'll hang in there."

Limbaugh on March 8: "Congressman Massa, we're doing our part" to make his allegations against Dems "a national story." During the March 8 edition of his show, Limbaugh stated, "Massa says that they're coming after him because of his vote on health care." Limbaugh further stated:

LIMBAUGH: He was asked in this appearance: "Well, why don't you rescind your resignation?" He said, "The only way I can do that is if this becomes a national story." So Congressman Massa, we're doing our part here to make it a national story. But he then said, "But you have to understand something, if I don't quit, the ethics investigation continues and they're going to ruin me that way." What would you do if you were him? What would you do, Snerdley, what would you do? They're going to ruin him anyway. He sounds ticked off enough that I would stay. This guy is as fired up as anybody I've ever heard anywhere opposed this, and the process and how they're getting it done. This guy is going to have so much support from people. We'll see. He's got five hours or four hours unless I was missing something here and he's said today that he's going to go ahead and resign and I haven't seen that.

Fox Nation trumpets "Gay Sex Harass Allegations," then asks "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa?"

Fox Nation on March 3: "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations." On March 3, the Fox News website The Fox Nation linked to a Politico story using the headline "House Dem Resigns Amid Gay Sex Harass Allegations":

Fox Nation on March 8: "Did Rahm Railroad Out Massa? Beck Finds Out Today!" On March 8, the Fox Nation front page promoted Massa's scheduled appearance on Glenn Beck's Fox News show:

The front page linked another Fox Nation page that quoted from a Washington Examiner item on Massa.

In a Washington Times' op-ed, Chris Horner revived a discredited study to conclude that green jobs initiatives in Spain were "economic and employment disasters." Horner also accused the Center of American Progress, the American Wind Energy Association, and the Department of Energy of coordinating "to produce an attack that would serve all their interests," ignoring news reports and the Spanish government itself that are also critical of the study.

Horner cites "Spanish academics and experts" who concluded "Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters"

Horner: Spanish experts "reveal[ed] Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters." From a March 9 Washington Times op-ed by Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Obama told Americans on no fewer than eight occasions to "think about what's happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany" to see his model for successful "green jobs" policies, and what we should expect here.

Some Spanish academics and experts on that country's wind- and solar-energy policies and outcomes took Mr. Obama up on his invitation, revealing Spain's policies to be economic and employment disasters. The political embarrassment to the administration was obvious, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs asked about the Spanish study at a press conference, and the president hurriedly substituted Denmark for Spain in his stump speech.

In a March 3 PajamasMedia blog post, Horner stated, "In March, a research team from Madrid's King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: 'Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.' The paper concludes that Spain's 'green jobs' program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs."

Horner suggests criticism of study is rooted in conspiracy involving Department of Energy and CAP. Citing documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute using the Freedom of Information Act, Horner asserted: "What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests."

Study Horner cited roundly criticized for "lack of scientific rigor"

U.S. Department of Energy: "[T]he primary conclusion made by the authors ... is not supported by their work." In an August 2009 White Paper responding to the Spanish study, which was written by Gabriel Calzada, a professor of economics at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain and fellow of the Centre for the New Europe, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory stated that the Spanish study "represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors -- policy support of renewable energy results in net job losses -- is not supported by their work." The paper further concluded:

The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

WSJ's Johnson: "Study doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed." Wall Street Journal reporter Keith Johnson challenged a key premise of the study, writing on March 30, 2009, that it "doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending." He went on to write: "The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it's hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January."

Spanish government criticized study for "non rigorous methodology." In a May 20, 2009, letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate Change, wrote that Calzada's analysis used a "low reliable and non rigorous methodology" and that the data he used are "totally out of keeping with the current reality of the sector." Stating that "the Spanish Government would like to express its views," Rodríguez further wrote:

In Spain, according to the last data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade the [renewable energy] sector employs 73.900 direct workers, while other report by ISTAS-CCOO (labour union institute of work, environment and health) estimates 89000 direct jobs plus 99681 indirect jobs, against de 52200 direct and indirect jobs of the Calzada's figures (unknown source). According to data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade and of the wind power business association, the wind power sector employed 37730 people instead of the 15000 jobs considered in the Calzada's paper.

ISTAS: "The lack of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming." In an analysis of the Calzada study, Spain's Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS) stated that the study contained a "lack of scientific rigor." ISTAS also said that the lack "of transparency that exists in the data provided is alarming" and that Calzada had written not "a study ... but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts." ISTAS also stated that one of the "real intention[s] behind the document" was to "try and influence the U.S. media."

Study's author reportedly has ties to oil industry

Study reportedly "supported" by oil-funded Institute for Energy Research. Washington Post columnist George Will cited Calzada's study on June 25, 2009, and stated that Calzada's "study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech.)" As Media Matters noted, ExxonMobil Corp. has disclosed that it has provided funding for the institute. Moreover, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation -- the president of which is an executive vice president of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940" -- donated $85,000 in grants to the institute between 1997 and 2005, according Internal Revenue Service data compiled by mediatransparency.org, a website of the Media Matters Action Network.

Calzada is fellow at Centre for the New Europe, which has also taken oil-industry money. Calzada's biography from a Heartland Institute conference states that he is a "fellow of the Centre for the New Europe (Brussels, Belgium)." The president of the Centre for the New Europe has acknowledged receiving money from ExxonMobil in 2005, according to a December 7, 2006, article in London's Independent.

On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson falsely suggested health care reform legislation contained no immediate benefits, and Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney claimed that "nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. In fact, numerous benefits found in the Senate's bill and President Obama's proposal would begin immediately, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that both the Senate and the House's legislation will reduce deficits.

Fox & Friends advances falsehoods that health care reform has no immediate benefits and would not reduce the deficit

Varney: "Nobody believes" that health care reform will reduce the deficit. On the March 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Varney said that "even if ... you go to the right decade, and look at the correct numbers from the CBO, there is still a great deal of confusion as to whether or not you do actually save any money or whether it adds hugely to the deficit." Varney then claimed, "Look, nobody believes that you can cover 30 million extra people, maintain quality of care, and cut the deficit by a trillion dollars at the same time. Nobody believes that."

Carlson: "They're going to start taxing all the people" before the "so-called benefits kick in." After Varney cast doubt on the ability of health care reform to cut the deficit, Carlson said: "Here's how they're going to pay for it, here's how they're going to get all that: They're going to start taxing all the people first before any of the benefits -- so-called benefits -- kick in."

CBO: Health care reform will lower the deficit

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, "CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period." CBO also stated in its November 6 estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Carlson's suggestion, according to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, WashingtonPost.com blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

• The President's proposal will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

• The President's proposal makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $11 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

• The President's proposal eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the plan prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

• The President's proposal will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, effective 90 days after enactment. This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

• The President's proposal begins to fill the "donut hole" by giving seniors a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010.

Small Business Tax Credits

• The President's proposal will offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable.

• Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage; later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit.

[...]

Patient Protections

• The President's proposal protects patients' choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before and woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

• The President's proposal will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans for young adults who are not offered qualified coverage elsewhere.

Free Prevention Benefits

• The President's proposal will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans and all plans in 2018.

• Beginning on January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for prevention services.

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

• The President's proposal will tightly restrict insurance companies' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care, effective six months after enactment for all new health plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the Exchanges are operational, the use of annual limits will be banned for all plans in 2014.

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

• The President's proposal will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all plans.

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

• The President's proposal will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all group health plans in 2014.

In an attack on Gen. Robert Harding, President Obama's nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that Harding's views on the necessity for diversity hiring in the intelligence community are "controversial." In fact, numerous officials -- including President Bush -- and intelligence experts agree with Harding that diversity hiring in the intelligence community is vital to national security.

WND attacks TSA nominee: Views on diversity "controversial"

WND claims Harding has "controversial views on diversity." In a March 8 article, WorldNetDaily claimed that Harding "long has pushed for 'ethnic diversity' as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies." The article quoted November 2003 written testimony Harding gave to a Senate subcommittee stressing the need for diversity hiring in the intelligence community. From the article:

President Obama's pick to head the Transportation Security Administration long has pushed for "ethnic diversity" as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies, WND has learned.

[...]

WND found that in 2003, Harding submitted written testimony to a Senate subcommittee hearing on intelligence issues pushing for more diversity atsecurity agencies, going so far as to call diversity a "requirement."

[...]

Harding noted how he previously testified in Senate hearings while working at the Defense Department. He then applauded the senatorial committee for remaining "steadfastly clear about the need for diversity in the ranks of the CIA."

He urged the Defense Department to "build systems and incentives to attract, maintain and sustain a diverse group of gifted (human intelligence) operatives."

Harding maintained the military community "still needs senior folks with language and diversity at the top -- folks who feel a responsibility in a particularly focused way."

[...]

Harding, meanwhile, would not be the only Obama administration official with controversial views on diversity.

But Harding's views are not "controversial" or unique; numerous officials and experts have said diversity is vital to national security

Harding: Diversity in intelligence community is "an analytical necessity." In his 2003 testimony, Harding cited a report by Robert Callum, titled, "The Case for Cultural Diversity in the Intelligence Community," in which Callum argued, "While the leaders of the CIA, DIA, NSA and NRO have all acknowledged the lack of diversity and have created focused recruiting efforts, the acceptance of minorities into the IC [intelligence community] has been disappointing to date. The reason, in part, is that diversity has been viewed as a legal and moral imperative, and not as an analytical necessity." In his paper (purchase required), Callum also argued: "Diversity should be sought, not on legal or ethical grounds, but rather because increased diversity will lead to better intelligence analysis." After quoting a portion of Callum's argument, Harding said: "I sincerely hope that, given the current state of our analytical community, that we've collectively overcome that sentiment." Later in his testimony, Harding described the CIA's recent efforts to "ensure diversity of languages, skills and ethnic and cultural understanding" in its recruits as "a matter of survival."

Bush touted "cultural awareness" as "necessary to meet the threats of this new century." In remarks during the February 20, 2007, swearing-in of Mike McConnell as director of national intelligence, President Bush said of McConnell, "I've asked him to ensure that our intelligence agency focus on bringing in more Americans with language skills and cultural awareness necessary to meet the threats of this new century."

McConnell: "We have got to have more diversity." In remarks during a 2007 Border Security Conference, McConnell said, "It is now our policy across this [intelligence] community that we do not screen out first generation Americans. The very people that we need in this community to speak the languages, understand the cultures, are the ones who have come to America from the distant shores." He later said, "[O]ur focus is to get a more diverse culture," and that "[w]e have got to have more diversity."

McConnell stressed need to hire "first and second generation Americans who possess native language skills, cultural insights." In remarks during his swearing-in ceremony as director of national intelligence, McConnell said, "[W]e will revamp security and workforce policies of past. Our nation requires that we have the best and brightest of our citizens in our ranks to fight a very different enemy. The old policies have hampered some common sense reforms, such as hiring first and second generation Americans who possess native language skills, cultural insights, and a keen understanding of the threats we face."

Rep. Reyes: "[I]t's in our best interests ... to focus on recruiting and giving opportunities to minority groups. On the August 13, 2007, edition CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said, "[W]hat we're trying to do is point out that there ought to be a greater outreach by the different intelligence agencies to minority communities. One of the lessons we learned after 9/11 was that we didn't understand the cultures, the languages, the customs of many communities throughout the world." Reyes continued, "So I think it's in our best interests to get the agencies to focus on recruiting and giving opportunities to minority groups."

Army Lt. Gen. Rochelle: "Diversity is a national security issue." A July 25, 2008, American Forces Press Service article reported that "diversity in the force now takes on a national security context and serves as a combat multiplier on the battlefield, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, the service's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said." The article quoted Rochelle as saying, "Diversity is a national security issue and one that every one of us should be concerned about, frankly, because it is a force multiplier for our soldiers."

NSA director: "[D]iversity is an area in which improvement is essential to sustaining our mission." In November 5, 2003, testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence -- the same hearing at which Harding spoke -- then-National Security Agency (NSA) deputy director William Black said that "NSA has made significant progress in hiring, recruitment, retention, skills mix, and training. Despite successes in these areas, NSA recognizes that its diversity is an area in which improvement is essential to sustaining our mission."

Former CSIS South America Project director: "Pursu[ing] diversity within the intelligence services ... is the smart thing to do." During the November 5, 2003, Senate hearing, Miguel Diaz, former director of the Center for Strategic & International Studies' South America Project, said, "[W]e should pursue diversity within the intelligence services because it is the smart thing to do." He further stated: "Minorities have much to offer in the way of language capability, social skills, and cultural sensibilities that have been sorely lacking in the past. Because of the variety of our national origins we look like the rest of the world, an important attribute in the intelligence business."

Former National Commission on Terrorism member: "America needs ... to draw Arabs and Muslims into our intelligence agencies." During the November 5, 2003, Senate hearing, Juliette N. Kayyem, a former member of the National Commission on Terrorism, stated that "America needs to begin a strategic recruitment effort to draw Arabs and Muslims into our intelligence agencies" because "our law enforcement and intelligence communities are woefully inadequate in Arabic translation skills, and are often forced to contract out these vital duties."

Supreme Court has noted military officers' views that diversity is a national security issue

Court noted officers' views that "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps" is essential "to provide national security." In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court noted that retired military officers said that a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." From the Supreme Court opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger:

What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, "[b]ased on [their] decades of experience," a "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." Brief for Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae 27.